[Congressional Record Volume 146, Number 91 (Friday, July 14, 2000)]
[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1250]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                    ALL THE NEWS THAT'S FIT TO LEAK

                                 ______
                                 

                           HON. BARNEY FRANK

                            of massachusetts

                    in the house of representatives

                        Thursday, July 13, 2000

  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, from time to time I insert 
articles into the Congressional Record which seem to make important 
points that my colleagues should read. Usually I accompany them with 
some explanation of why I think they are important. In the case of 
Michael Kinsley's superb article on Kenneth Starr's press secretary, 
the New York Times, and the ethics of leaking, no such commentary is 
necessary. I submit the article here.

               [From the Washington Post, July 11, 2000]

                I Did Not Have Leaks With that Newspaper


                           It's not about sex

                          (By Michael Kinsley)

       No, no, it really isn't about sex this time. No one has 
     even suggested that Charles Bakaly, former deputy to 
     independent counsel Kenneth Starr, had sexual relations with 
     New York Times reporter Don Van Natta. The accusation is that 
     Bakaly leaked a story to Van Natta back in January 1999. 
     Other than that small difference, though, the parallels are 
     pretty tasty. Bakaly was--according to informed sources--a 
     promiscuous leaker who just got caught this time. As with 
     Starr's main target, there is speculation whether he was 
     hoodwinking the boss or had an ``understanding.'' And Bakaly 
     is in legal trouble not for the initial sin but for lying 
     about it in the subsequent investigation. His trial starts 
     Thursday.
       Oddly, Bakaly's defenders seem unable on this occasion to 
     keep the original behavior and the subsequent denials 
     distinct in their minds. Because they feel there was nothing 
     wrong with the leaking (and indeed a circuit court panel held 
     as much last September), they feel it is unfiar to punish 
     Bakaly for the attempted coverup. The purity of obstruction 
     of justice--the principle that it is wrong to give false 
     answers in the criminal justice system, even to questions 
     that never should have been asked--no longer beguiles them. 
     Don't try to tell them it's not about leaks, it's about 
     lying. They don't buy it. This time.
       The New York Times, at least, is consistent. It opposed the 
     impeachment of President Clinton and it opposes the 
     prosecution of Charles Bakaly (in which the Times itself 
     plays the role of Monica). ``Ill-considered,'' thundered the 
     Times editorial page July 8. ``A regrettable denouement,'' it 
     roared. Actually, that's more like a meow than a roar, isn't 
     it? But then the whole world of leaks puts news media in a 
     comically difficult position.
       A friend of mine defends dishonest adulterous politicians 
     on the grounds that (a) adultery should not be a public 
     issue; (b) lying is inherent to adultery; therefore (c) lying 
     about adultery should not be a public issue. Something 
     similar might be said in defense of dishonest talkative 
     public officials; (a) Leaking serves the public interest; (b) 
     lying is essential to leaking, and therefore (c) lying about 
     leaking serves the public interest. This might be said but 
     never is said because it is too embarrassing. How can 
     professional truth-tellers defend lying? So instead we deny 
     step (b): that leaking and lying are inseparable.
       The New York Times story that led to the Bakaly prosecution 
     reported that ``several associates of Mr. Starr'' had said 
     that Starr believed he had constitutional authority to indict 
     a sitting president. As the story ran on, these unnamed 
     associates chatted away about sundry implications of this 
     factoid. But not Charles Bakaly! ``Charles G. Bakaly 3d, the 
     spokesman for Mr. Starr, declined to discuss the matter. `We 
     will not discuss the plans of this office or the plans of the 
     grand jury in any way, shape, or form,' he said.'' Thus the 
     Times not only allowed Bakaly to tell what the reporter knew 
     to be a lie in its press, but it told a knowing lie itself. 
     Bakaly did not ``decline to discuss the matter.''
       Unless Bakaly actually wasn't the leaker, as he still 
     maintains. This is pretty unlikely, unless Starr--who 
     defended him for a while, then fired him after a supposed 
     investigation--is a total dastard. But suppose Bakaly 
     actually did not have leakual relations with that newspaper. 
     In that case the Times has been reporting on the criminal 
     prosecution of a man it knows to be innocent, while failing 
     to report that rather pertinent bit of information.
       The media also tend to be disingenuous, at least, about the 
     general function of leaks. In this case, whether or not 
     Bakaly was the leaker, and whether or not Starr was in on the 
     plot, it was a strategic leak, intended to unnerve the 
     Clinton forces during the impeachment proceedings. Most leaks 
     are like this: not courageous acts of dissent from the 
     organization but part of the organization's game plan.
       And thus leaks often suck the media into a conspiracy of 
     hype. Was the fact that Starr thought a sitting president 
     could be indicted really so new, so important, so surprising? 
     (He never actually tried it, so intentionally or not, the 
     leak turned out to be misleading.) In what the Times may have 
     regarded as a somewhat backhanded defense of its scoop. The 
     Washington Post editorialized that ``this information was not 
     really even news at all.'' The Times itself took the opposite 
     approach, declaring that the story ``was obviously of great 
     national moment.'' Too small to matter? Too big to stop? Each 
     is a plausible defense, but both can't be true.
       The point here is not to pick on the Times. (Is that true? 
     Sources inside my head, who spoke on the condition they not 
     be identified, say it's hard to tell.) Let's say the point is 
     that even the New York Times has leak fever. Its editorial 
     last week, just after declaring that the Starr story was ``of 
     great national moment,'' suddenly pooh-poohed this historic 
     scoop as merely ``discussion Mr. Starr and his aides may have 
     had with reporters about [their] deliberations.'' May have 
     had? The story was what anonymous Starr aides had told the 
     Times about their deliberations! In its pious agnosticism 
     regarding matters it must know the truth about, the Times 
     seems to be raising the possibility that it made the whole 
     thing up.
       Now that I wouldn't believe. Even if it said so in the New 
     York Times.

     

                          ____________________